| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Rief <jacob(dot)rief(at)gmx(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Writing triggers in C++ |
| Date: | 2007-02-14 01:07:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1222.1171415221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Rief <jacob(dot)rief(at)gmx(dot)at> writes:
> I tried to write a trigger using C++.
That is most likely not going to work anyway, because the backend
operating environment is C not C++. If you dumb it down enough
--- no exceptions, no RTTI, no use of C++ library --- then it might
work, but at that point you're really coding in C anyway.
> Is there any convention how to rename such identifiers? If I would
> rename those identifiers (I simply would add an underscore to each of
> them), would such a patch be accepted and adopted onto one of the next
> releases?
No. Because of the above problems, we don't see much reason to avoid
C++'s extra keywords.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-14 01:10:29 | Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-14 01:01:03 | Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions |